Feature

Pretrial screening panels: Do they reduce frivolous claims?


 

Broader studies needed

Little national data exists on the overall impact of medical review panels.

Pretrial screening panels had no significant effect on claims frequency or compensation amounts, according to a 2016 report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

That report looked at seven state tort reform strategies and concluded that data on pretrial screening panels was older and more limited, compared with that of other reforms. Because few early studies identified any notable effects of screening panels, researchers in later studies typically excluded screening panels from the models being tested, according to the MedPAC report.

Michelle Mello of Stanford University

Dr. Michelle Mello

Michelle M. Mello, PhD, a law professor at Stanford (Calif.) University and coauthor of the MedPAC report, said she was uncertain why there has not been closer study of pretrial screening panels in recent years. Pretrial screening panels probably have little effect because they apply a low standard to complaints, and thus, few claims get weeded out, she said in an interview. “The statutes don’t require them to do much more than say the plaintiff has a plausible case.”

The last comprehensive study on the effects of pretrial screening panels was published almost 10 years ago.

Researchers at Virginia Military University in Lexington evaluated panel data collected during 1991-2004 and data on malpractice awards from the National Practitioner Data Bank for the analysis. The study found review panels had no significant effect on the number of malpractice awards. However, results showed that states with noneconomic damages caps had markedly fewer malpractice awards (Virginia Economic Journal. 2010;15:35-45).

“The fact that damage caps are binding, while [medical malpractice review panel] recommendations are not, could explain the significance of the former, and the insignificance of the latter,” the authors wrote. “It seems reasonable that reforms must be binding, unavoidable, and obligatory to have real effects.”

Pages

Recommended Reading

USPSTF finds the evidence inconclusive for lead screening in young children, pregnant women
MDedge Pediatrics
The type II error and black holes
MDedge Pediatrics
How to incorporate the gender wage gap into contract negotiations
MDedge Pediatrics
Malpractice: Diagnostic errors top allegation involving children
MDedge Pediatrics
CMS plan will incentivize generic drug use
MDedge Pediatrics
U.S. measles cases nearing postelimination-era high
MDedge Pediatrics
Gaps exist in rotavirus vaccination coverage in young U.S. children
MDedge Pediatrics
Association insurance pushes on despite court ruling
MDedge Pediatrics
Courts temporarily block Title X changes
MDedge Pediatrics
VIDEO: Physicians fall short on adequate sleep, consumption of fruits and vegetables
MDedge Pediatrics